22.0 Cesa v.

OMB
FACTS: The Office of the Ombudsman suspended the petitioner-treasurer for six months without pay for tolerating
illegal practices relative to the granting of cash advances to paymasters. The petitioner argued in his petition for review
that the Ombudsman had no power to directly suspend him and that there was no legal and factual basis to suspend him.
ISSUE: Whether the Ombudsman has the power to remove an erring public official from government service.
RULING: Yes. Under Act No. 6770 and the 1987 Constitution, the Ombudsman has the constitutional power to directly
remove from government service an erring public official other than a member of Congress and the Judiciary, which
means that the recommendation is not merely advisory but mandatory.
22.1 OMB v. De Sahagun
FACTS: Fact-Finding Intelligence Bureau (FFIB) filed criminal and administrative charges against respondents for failing to go
through the required procedure for public bidding and grave misconduct, conduct grossly prejudicial to the best interest of the service
and gross violation of Rules and Regulations. The CA held that the nature of the function of the Ombudsman was purely
recommendatory and it did not have the power to penalize erring government officials and employees.
ISSUE: Whether the Ombudsman only has recommendatory, not punitive, powers against erring government officials and
employees.
RULING: Yes. It is already well-settled that the Ombudsmans power as regards the administrative penalty to be imposed
on an erring public officer or employee is not merely recommendatory. The Ombudsman has the power to directly impose
the penalty of removal, suspension, demotion, fine, censure or prosecution of a public officer of employee other than a
member of Congress and the Judiciary, found to be at fault.
22.2 OMB v. Samaniego
FACTS: Respondent has allegedly incurred shortages in his accountabilities. He was meted the penalty of one year
suspension from office by the Ombudsman. However, CA granted the respondents prayer for the issuance of writ of
preliminary injunction. OMB filed a motion for intervention and a motion to recall the writ of preliminary injunction, but
were both denied. The OMB claims that CA erred in denying its right to intervene.
ISSUE: Whether the OMB has the authority to intervene.
RULING: Yes. To aid the Ombudsman in carrying out its tasks, it was vested with disciplinary authority over government
officials. The Office of the Ombudsman is vested with full administrative disciplinary authority including the power to
determine appropriate penalty imposable on erring public impose the said penalty.